Literature DB >> 28368542

Expandable vs Static Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Radiographic Comparison of Segmental and Lumbar Sagittal Angles.

Timothy J Yee1, Jacob R Joseph1, Samuel W Terman2, Paul Park1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One criticism of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the inability to increase segmental lordosis (SL). Expandable interbody cages are a relatively new innovation theorized to allow improvement in SL.
OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in SL and lumbar lordosis (LL) after TLIF with nonexpandable vs expandable cages.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who were ≥18 years old and underwent single-level TLIF between 2011 and 2014. Patients were categorized by cage type (static vs expandable). Primary outcome of interest was change in SL and LL from preoperative values to those at 1 month and 1 year postoperatively.
RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were studied (48 nonexpandable group, 41 expandable group). Groups had similar baseline characteristics. For SL, median (interquartile range) improvement was 3° for nonexpandable and 2° for expandable (unadjusted, P = .09; adjusted, P = .68) at 1 month postoperatively, and 3° for nonexpandable and 1° for expandable (unadjusted, P = .41; adjusted, P = .28) at 1 year postoperatively. For LL, median improvement was 1° for nonexpandable and 2° for expandable (unadjusted, P = .20; adjusted, P = .21), and 2° for nonexpandable and 5° for expandable (unadjusted, P = .15; adjusted, P = .51) at 1 year postoperatively. After excluding parallel expandable cages, there was still no difference in SL or LL improvement at 1 month or 1 year postoperatively between static and expandable cages (both unadjusted and adjusted, P > .05).
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing single-level TLIF experienced similar improvements in SL and LL regardless of whether nonexpandable or expandable cages were placed.
Copyright © 2017 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons

Entities:  

Keywords:  Expandable cage; Interbody cage; Minimally invasive; Spine; TLIF; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28368542     DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyw177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  12 in total

1.  Expandable Interbody Fusion Cages: An Editorial on the Surgeon's Perspective on Recent Technological Advances and Their Biomechanical Implications.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Lisa Ferrara; Boyle Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

2.  Bidirectional Expandable Technology for Transforaminal or Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Performance.

Authors:  Domagoj Coric; Raphael R Roybal; Mark Grubb; Vincent Rossi; Alex K Yu; Isaac R Swink; Jason Long; Boyle C Cheng; Jason A Inzana
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

3.  Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Early Experience Using a Biplanar Expandable Cage for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Lee A Tan; Joshua Rivera; Xiao A Tan; Vivian P Le; Larry T Khoo; Sigurd H Berven
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

4.  Static Versus Expandable Devices Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Benjamin Khechen; Brittany E Haws; Dil V Patel; Joon S Yoo; Jordan A Guntin; Kaitlyn L Cardinal; Sravisht Iyer; Kern Singh
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-03-27

Review 5.  Interbody Fusions in the Lumbar Spine: A Review.

Authors:  Ravi Verma; Sohrab Virk; Sheeraz Qureshi
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2020-01-13

6.  In Vitro Biomechanical and Fluoroscopic Study of a Continuously Expandable Interbody Spacer Concerning Its Role in Insertion Force and Segmental Kinematics.

Authors:  Joel Torretti; Jonathan Andrew Harris; Brandon Seth Bucklen; Mark Moldavsky; Saif El Din Khalil
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-07-27

7.  Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study.

Authors:  Michael H Lawless; Chad F Claus; Doris Tong; Noah Jordan; Amarpal Dosanjh; Connor T Hanson; Daniel A Carr; Clifford M Houseman
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-15

8.  Comparison of Long-Term Efficacy of MIS-TLIF Intraoperative Implants in Patients with Osteoporosis.

Authors:  Yao Li; Shengfu Liu; Zhimin He; Shunzhi Yu
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-02-27       Impact factor: 2.238

9.  A retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes in single-level degenerative lumbar disease undergoing anterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Ziev B Moses; Sharmeen Razvi; Seok Yoon Oh; Andrew Platt; Kevin C Keegan; Fadi Hamati; Christopher Witiw; Brian T David; Ricardo B V Fontes; Harel Deutsch; John E O'Toole; Richard G Fessler
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-06

10.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable cages: Radiological and clinical results of banana-shaped and straight implants.

Authors:  Tjark Tassemeier; Marcel Haversath; Marcus Jäger
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.